Search (427 results, page 1 of 22)

0.03777396 = product of:
  0.056660935 = sum of:
    0.03003503 = weight(_text_:of in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03003503 = score(doc=7245,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 7245, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7245)
    0.026625905 = product of:
      0.05325181 = sum of:
        0.05325181 = weight(_text_:22 in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05325181 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The nature and implications of electrocopying are summarised. After a brief review of the principles of copyright, the issue of whether electrocopying infringes copyright is debated. Publishers are aware of the threat that electrocopying poses to their business. The various options available to publishers for responding to electrocopying are summarised. Patterns of scholarly communications and the relationships between authors, publishers and libraries are being challenged. Constructive dialogue is necessary if the issues are to be resolved

Source

Journal of document and text management. 2(1994) no.1, S.10-22

0.037515447 = product of:
  0.056273166 = sum of:
    0.022990782 = weight(_text_:of in 4551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022990782 = score(doc=4551,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4551, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4551)
    0.033282384 = product of:
      0.06656477 = sum of:
        0.06656477 = weight(_text_:22 in 4551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06656477 = score(doc=4551,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4551, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4551)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Considers dangers posed by the growth of electronic publishing. These fall into 3 groups: dangers to reputation, dangers to intellectual property, and dangers to organizational integrity. Discusses these danger areas and suggests a number of defences

Date

22. 7.1996 21:39:19

0.037515447 = product of:
  0.056273166 = sum of:
    0.022990782 = weight(_text_:of in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022990782 = score(doc=4988,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4988, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4988)
    0.033282384 = product of:
      0.06656477 = sum of:
        0.06656477 = weight(_text_:22 in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06656477 = score(doc=4988,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4988, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4988)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Discusses the changing forces of demand, supply and technical change in the field of academic publishing. Covers electronic publishing; the UnCover document delivery service from B.H. Blackwell; the work of Blackwell Science and Blackwell Publishers and electronic pilot studies

Source

IATUL proceedings (new series). 4(1995), S.15-22

0.035091337 = product of:
  0.052637003 = sum of:
    0.026011098 = weight(_text_:of in 3674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026011098 = score(doc=3674,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 3674, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3674)
    0.026625905 = product of:
      0.05325181 = sum of:
        0.05325181 = weight(_text_:22 in 3674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05325181 = score(doc=3674,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3674, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3674)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Recent years have seen a proliferation of electronic journals across academic disciplines. Electronic journals offer many advantages to multiple constituencies, however, their acceptance by faculty and university promotion and tenure committees is unclear. This research examines perceptions of faculty and promotion and tenure committee members regarding the perceived prestige and legitimacy of electronic journals as an outlet for scholarly communication

Date

22. 5.1999 14:43:47

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.6, S.537-543

0.033580456 = product of:
  0.050370682 = sum of:
    0.023744777 = weight(_text_:of in 6685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023744777 = score(doc=6685,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 6685, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6685)
    0.026625905 = product of:
      0.05325181 = sum of:
        0.05325181 = weight(_text_:22 in 6685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05325181 = score(doc=6685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6685, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Articles contributed to a report of the results of project ELVYN, sponsored by the British Library Research and Development Department and conducted by Loughborough University, in conjunction with the Institute of Physics Publishing and SCONUL, to test the practicalities and potential pitfalls of publishers delivering periodicals electronically to libraries. Presents the results and sets them in the context of current developments in electronic publishing

Date

1. 3.1997 18:22:00

0.033580456 = product of:
  0.050370682 = sum of:
    0.023744777 = weight(_text_:of in 7481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023744777 = score(doc=7481,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 7481, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7481)
    0.026625905 = product of:
      0.05325181 = sum of:
        0.05325181 = weight(_text_:22 in 7481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05325181 = score(doc=7481,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7481, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In print publications, content elements are representable in visual form, but in digital presentation function may be shown through hypertext. Good design must be a tool to illuminate content, not an arbitrary add on. Sets out elements of good digital design. Consideration of the purpose of the publication, the use of the publication, the audience, and the market will help to identify appropriate design choices

Source

Journal of scholarly publishing. 28(1996) no.1, S.13-22

0.033580456 = product of:
  0.050370682 = sum of:
    0.023744777 = weight(_text_:of in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023744777 = score(doc=3035,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
    0.026625905 = product of:
      0.05325181 = sum of:
        0.05325181 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05325181 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Studies the effects of e-journals on the scholarly communities they are serving. Considers to what extent scholars and researchers are aware of, influenced by, using, or building their own work on research published in e-journals. Draws a sample of scholarly, peer-reviewed e-journals and conducts several analyzes thorugh citation analysis. The data show that the impact of journals on scholarly communication has been minimal

Date

22. 2.1999 16:56:06

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.6, S.507-516

0.033580456 = product of:
  0.050370682 = sum of:
    0.023744777 = weight(_text_:of in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023744777 = score(doc=3686,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
    0.026625905 = product of:
      0.05325181 = sum of:
        0.05325181 = weight(_text_:22 in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05325181 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The British Library's Initiatives for Access programme (1993-) aims to identify the impact and value of digital and networking technologies on the Library's collections and services. Describes the projects: the Electronic Beowulf, digitisation of ageing microfilm, digital photographic images, and use of the Excalibur retrieval software. Examines the ways in which the issues of preparation, scanning, and storage have been tackled, and problems raised by use of recognition technologies and compression

Date

22. 5.1999 19:00:52

0.030012354 = product of:
  0.04501853 = sum of:
    0.018392624 = weight(_text_:of in 4555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018392624 = score(doc=4555,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 4555, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4555)
    0.026625905 = product of:
      0.05325181 = sum of:
        0.05325181 = weight(_text_:22 in 4555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05325181 = score(doc=4555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4555, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

OCLC distributes several scholarly journals under its Electronic Journals Online programme, acting, in effect, as an 'electronic printer' for scholarly publishers. It is prototyping a WWW accessible version of these journals. Describes the problems encountered, detail some of the short term solutions, and highlight changes to existing standards that will enhance the use of the WWW for scholarly electronic publishing

Date

23. 7.1996 10:22:20

0.028330466 = product of:
  0.042495698 = sum of:
    0.022526272 = weight(_text_:of in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022526272 = score(doc=2757,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
    0.019969428 = product of:
      0.039938856 = sum of:
        0.039938856 = weight(_text_:22 in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039938856 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article focuses on the process of scientific and scholarly communication. Data on open access publications on the Internet not only provides a supplement to the traditional citation indexes but also enables analysis of the microprocesses and daily practices that constitute scientific communication. This article focuses on a stage in the life cycle of scientific and scholarly information that precedes the publication of formal research articles in the scientific and scholarly literature. Binomial logistic regression models are used to analyse precise mechanisms at work in the transformation of a working paper (WP) into a journal article (JA) in the field of economics. The study unveils a fine-grained process of adapting WPs to their new context as JAs by deleting and adding literature references, which perhaps can be best captured by the term sculpting.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:59:25

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.728-739

0.027920596 = product of:
  0.041880894 = sum of:
    0.018583227 = weight(_text_:of in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018583227 = score(doc=582,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
    0.023297668 = product of:
      0.046595335 = sum of:
        0.046595335 = weight(_text_:22 in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595335 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Discusses the publishing of books online on the Internet, in the USA. The issues is treated mainly in relation to trade publishers. Outlines various ways in which such publishers have so far used the Internet, for example in the publishing of the full text of works of fiction, for publishing catalogues, and for presenting authors to the public via bulletin boards or electronic conferences. Notes a number or problems which arise: copyright, payment for accessing items, advertising restrictions, and the ease with which the published unit can be tampered with when available on the Internet. Also discusses collaboration and conflicts between publishers and the technology industry

Source

Publishers weekly. 240(1993) no.47, 22 Nov., S.33-35,38

0.027762279 = product of:
  0.04164342 = sum of:
    0.015017515 = weight(_text_:of in 3620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015017515 = score(doc=3620,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3620, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3620)
    0.026625905 = product of:
      0.05325181 = sum of:
        0.05325181 = weight(_text_:22 in 3620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05325181 = score(doc=3620,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3620, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3620)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Describes an approach for developing adaptive textbooks and presents InterBook - an authoring tool based on this approach which simplifies the development of adaptive electronic textbooks on the Web

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

Footnote

Contribution to a special issue devoted to the Proceedings of the 7th International World Wide Web Conference, held 14-18 April 1998, Brisbane, Australia

0.027360551 = product of:
  0.041040827 = sum of:
    0.021071399 = weight(_text_:of in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021071399 = score(doc=1871,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 1871, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1871)
    0.019969428 = product of:
      0.039938856 = sum of:
        0.039938856 = weight(_text_:22 in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039938856 = score(doc=1871,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1871, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Chemical information sciences-ranging from subjectspecific bibliometrics to sophisticated theoretical systems for modeling structures and reactions-have historically led in developing new technologies. Hundreds of papers are published or presented at conferences annually in this discipline. One of the more significant conferences at which important research has historically been presented is the Tri-Society Symposium an Chemical Information, an event jointly sponsored by the American Chemical Society, the American Society for Information Science and Technology, and the Special Libraries Association and held every four years. Eight years ago, the theme of this conference was the chemist's workstation; papers were presented an developments enabling chemists to access and process a variety of different types of chemical information from their desktop or laboratory bench. Several of these papers were subsequently published as a Perspectives issue.

Date

19.10.2003 17:17:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.12, S.1136-1137

0.027360551 = product of:
  0.041040827 = sum of:
    0.021071399 = weight(_text_:of in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021071399 = score(doc=3662,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
    0.019969428 = product of:
      0.039938856 = sum of:
        0.039938856 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039938856 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A review of recent developments in electronic publishing, with a focus on Open Access (OA) is provided. It describes the two main types of OA, i.e. the `gold' OA journal route and the 'green' repository route, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the two, and the reactions of the publishing industry to these developments. Quality, cost and copyright issues are explored, as well as some of the business models of OA. It is noted that whilst so far there is no evidence that a shift to OA will lead to libraries cancelling subscriptions to toll-access journals, this may happen in the future, and that despite the apparently compelling reasons for authors to move to OA, so far few have shown themselves willing to do so. Conclusions about the future of scholarly publications are drawn.

Date

8. 7.2010 19:22:45

0.026421316 = product of:
  0.039631974 = sum of:
    0.022990782 = weight(_text_:of in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022990782 = score(doc=4635,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.016641192 = product of:
      0.033282384 = sum of:
        0.033282384 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033282384 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1614-1628

0.026421316 = product of:
  0.039631974 = sum of:
    0.022990782 = weight(_text_:of in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022990782 = score(doc=4410,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
    0.016641192 = product of:
      0.033282384 = sum of:
        0.033282384 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033282384 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between dissemination of research papers on Twitter and its influence on research impact. Design/methodology/approach Four types of journal Twitter accounts (journal, owner, publisher and no Twitter account) were defined to observe differences in the number of tweets and citations. In total, 4,176 articles from 350 journals were extracted from Plum Analytics. This altmetric provider tracks the number of tweets and citations for each paper. Student's t-test for two-paired samples was used to detect significant differences between each group of journals. Regression analysis was performed to detect which variables may influence the getting of tweets and citations. Findings The results show that journals with their own Twitter account obtain more tweets (46 percent) and citations (34 percent) than journals without a Twitter account. Followers is the variable that attracts more tweets (ß=0.47) and citations (ß=0.28) but the effect is small and the fit is not good for tweets (R2=0.46) and insignificant for citations (R2=0.18). Originality/value This is the first study that tests the performance of research journals on Twitter according to their handles, observing how the dissemination of content in this microblogging network influences the citation of their papers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.6, S.674-687

0.026260808 = product of:
  0.039391212 = sum of:
    0.016093547 = weight(_text_:of in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016093547 = score(doc=4198,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.023297668 = product of:
      0.046595335 = sum of:
        0.046595335 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595335 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Large, data-rich organizations have tremendously large collections of digital objects to be "repurposed," to respond quickly and economically to publishing, marketing, and information needs. Some management typically assume that a content management system, or some other technique such as OWL and RDF, will automatically address the workflow and technical issues associated with this reuse. Four case studies show that the sources of some roadblocks to agile repurposing are as much managerial and organizational as they are technical in nature. The review concludes with suggestions on how digital object repurposing can be integrated given these organizations' structures.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:23:07

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.363-374

0.025850926 = product of:
  0.038776387 = sum of:
    0.025463434 = weight(_text_:of in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025463434 = score(doc=3608,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.33143494 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
    0.013312953 = product of:
      0.026625905 = sum of:
        0.026625905 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026625905 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.

Source

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/the-tragedy-of-google-books/523320/

0.025768792 = product of:
  0.038653187 = sum of:
    0.022011995 = weight(_text_:of in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022011995 = score(doc=2646,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.016641192 = product of:
      0.033282384 = sum of:
        0.033282384 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033282384 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A statistical analysis of full text downloads of articles in Elsevier's ScienceDirect covering all disciplines reveals large differences in download frequencies, their skewness, and their correlation with Scopus-based citation counts, between disciplines, journals, and document types. Download counts tend to be 2 orders of magnitude higher and less skewedly distributed than citations. A mathematical model based on the sum of two exponentials does not adequately capture monthly download counts. The degree of correlation at the article level within a journal is similar to that at the journal level in the discipline covered by that journal, suggesting that the differences between journals are, to a large extent, discipline specific. Despite the fact that in all studied journals download and citation counts per article positively correlate, little overlap may exist between the set of articles appearing in the top of the citation distribution and that with the most frequently downloaded ones. Usage and citation leaks, bulk downloading, differences between reader and author populations in a subject field, the type of document or its content, differences in obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations, and different functions of reading and citing in the research process all provide possible explanations of differences between download and citation distributions.

Date

22. 1.2016 14:11:17

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.412-431

0.025085872 = product of:
  0.037628807 = sum of:
    0.020987613 = weight(_text_:of in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020987613 = score(doc=2593,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.016641192 = product of:
      0.033282384 = sum of:
        0.033282384 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033282384 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Source

Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635